An interesting article from The Freeman:
Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
Most Police Have No Legal Duty to Protect Citizens from Criminal Attack
Richard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).
Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.
First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.
----
Click on the title for the entire article. He includes some sad stories of people who depended on the "system" to protect them. I want to point out that this is not an anti-police story. Police cannot be everywhere and they cannot prevent every crime *because* they cannot be everywhere!
---Katie
Monday, June 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
I think Glee should cut Finn some slack....
Ok, I admit it...I'm a Gleek. I really enjoy watching Glee. It is a guilty pleasure for me, because I disagree with lots of the behavior on the show, but I realize it's a farce. It is a farce, isn't it? I mean one school with so many, well, extreme characters...never mind, it's fun, it's not real and I really enjoy the music.
Except for this week. I was really uncomfortable, irritated, indignant - and it wasn't just the Lady Gaga stuff, even though I am not a fan. In fact the only reason I know anything at all about her is because I taped a replay of the Video Music Awards last year so I could see that silly thing Kanye West did over Taylor Swift's award.
I was really angry at the way they portrayed the situation between Kurt and Finn. (Yes, I know it is fiction, just for fun, but what we watch says something about how we think....) Kurt is one of my favorite characters. He is smart, funny, talented and struggling to be himself as a gay teen. I like Finn too. He's a jock, but not one of the arrogant bully types. He tries to do the right thing, like when he stood by his girlfriend, Quinn, when she got pregnant and told him he was the father even though he had respected her wishes not to have sex - but those determined little sperms swimming around in the hot tub, they were to blame! Finn is nice but a little clueless, and I did say the show is a bit of a farce. Finn has defended Kurt more than once and Kurt unfortunately has quite the crush on him. Unfortunately, because Finn is straight, straight, straight.
Kurt lives with his dad, who is doing a great job of supporting his son. Finn lives with his mom. Kurt manages to get the two parents together; they date for a little while and then decide to combine their families by moving in together (not by getting married, I might point out, but that is very out of style on tv.) And, of course, Kurt and Finn have to share a room. Finn gets a little bent out of shape, but Kurt's dad makes it all better by giving him $300 to remodel the room, which Kurt immediately snatches out of his hand, essentially saying that he will take care of it. When he presents the remodel to Finn, Finn loses it. He dumps all over Kurt, saying how he has to change in the bathroom and how uncomfortable he is with Kurt staring at him in the locker room...then he calls some of the decor "faggy" and that is when Kurt's dad comes in and comes down on Finn like a ton of bricks. He won't have that kind of talk about his son in his house. "Not in my house. Not in my house," he says.
What I want to know is, where is Finn's house then? He is still a kid, maybe 17 years old and his mother moves in with a guy who has a gay son who is hot for him. He is expected to share a room that has been decorated like a bordello with a guy who would really like to have a romantic, sexual relationship with him and isn't shy about making that known. Why is Finn made to look like the bad guy here? He did not ask for this situation! Let's say Finn was a girl and she knew Kurt was gay, but she saw this as an opportunity to get alone with Kurt and hope he would fall in love with her...or say Kurt was straight and in love with the female Finn - would these clueless parents force them to share a room and get mad at Finn for not being more understanding of Kurt?
This show just made me uncomfortable in so many ways but mostly about the way some parents don't think about how the people they bring into their kids lives and homes will affect them. And how we parents often expect way more maturity from our kids than is reasonable. And how the writers somehow think this episode made Kurt's situation more sympathetic?
And when Finn showed up at school in his bright red Lady Gaga dress I couldn't help feeling just like I did when Sandy in Grease dressed as a, well, less than virtuous woman so that she could hang on to Danny Zuko...
But the show is a farce, just for fun...it doesn't really mean anything, right?
Right....
---Katie
Except for this week. I was really uncomfortable, irritated, indignant - and it wasn't just the Lady Gaga stuff, even though I am not a fan. In fact the only reason I know anything at all about her is because I taped a replay of the Video Music Awards last year so I could see that silly thing Kanye West did over Taylor Swift's award.
I was really angry at the way they portrayed the situation between Kurt and Finn. (Yes, I know it is fiction, just for fun, but what we watch says something about how we think....) Kurt is one of my favorite characters. He is smart, funny, talented and struggling to be himself as a gay teen. I like Finn too. He's a jock, but not one of the arrogant bully types. He tries to do the right thing, like when he stood by his girlfriend, Quinn, when she got pregnant and told him he was the father even though he had respected her wishes not to have sex - but those determined little sperms swimming around in the hot tub, they were to blame! Finn is nice but a little clueless, and I did say the show is a bit of a farce. Finn has defended Kurt more than once and Kurt unfortunately has quite the crush on him. Unfortunately, because Finn is straight, straight, straight.
Kurt lives with his dad, who is doing a great job of supporting his son. Finn lives with his mom. Kurt manages to get the two parents together; they date for a little while and then decide to combine their families by moving in together (not by getting married, I might point out, but that is very out of style on tv.) And, of course, Kurt and Finn have to share a room. Finn gets a little bent out of shape, but Kurt's dad makes it all better by giving him $300 to remodel the room, which Kurt immediately snatches out of his hand, essentially saying that he will take care of it. When he presents the remodel to Finn, Finn loses it. He dumps all over Kurt, saying how he has to change in the bathroom and how uncomfortable he is with Kurt staring at him in the locker room...then he calls some of the decor "faggy" and that is when Kurt's dad comes in and comes down on Finn like a ton of bricks. He won't have that kind of talk about his son in his house. "Not in my house. Not in my house," he says.
What I want to know is, where is Finn's house then? He is still a kid, maybe 17 years old and his mother moves in with a guy who has a gay son who is hot for him. He is expected to share a room that has been decorated like a bordello with a guy who would really like to have a romantic, sexual relationship with him and isn't shy about making that known. Why is Finn made to look like the bad guy here? He did not ask for this situation! Let's say Finn was a girl and she knew Kurt was gay, but she saw this as an opportunity to get alone with Kurt and hope he would fall in love with her...or say Kurt was straight and in love with the female Finn - would these clueless parents force them to share a room and get mad at Finn for not being more understanding of Kurt?
This show just made me uncomfortable in so many ways but mostly about the way some parents don't think about how the people they bring into their kids lives and homes will affect them. And how we parents often expect way more maturity from our kids than is reasonable. And how the writers somehow think this episode made Kurt's situation more sympathetic?
And when Finn showed up at school in his bright red Lady Gaga dress I couldn't help feeling just like I did when Sandy in Grease dressed as a, well, less than virtuous woman so that she could hang on to Danny Zuko...
But the show is a farce, just for fun...it doesn't really mean anything, right?
Right....
---Katie
Monday, May 24, 2010
America's New Culture War: Free Enterprise vs. Government Control
This is the best explanation of the state of our economy I have read to date.
America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control
By Arthur C. Brooks
The Washington Post
Sunday, May 23, 2010
America faces a new culture war.
This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise -- limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.
PLEASE click on the title and read the rest. It is worth it.
Note - statism did not start with our current administration. As much as I respect George W. Bush, he is a statist as well, and statism will ruin the prosperity we have enjoyed in our country.
---Katie
America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control
By Arthur C. Brooks
The Washington Post
Sunday, May 23, 2010
America faces a new culture war.
This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise -- limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.
PLEASE click on the title and read the rest. It is worth it.
Note - statism did not start with our current administration. As much as I respect George W. Bush, he is a statist as well, and statism will ruin the prosperity we have enjoyed in our country.
---Katie
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Home School, Sweet Home School
Thank you Mr. Murchison!
Home School, Sweet Home School
By William Murchison · Tuesday, May 18, 2010
As I addressed a home school graduation exercise the other day, I thought -- more than once -- ah, good old human nature at work once more.
It's what happens when institutions fail or give the distinct impression they're about to. Customers head for the exits: not all of them, maybe just a handful. Yet those who do flee, taking their hopes and their children with them, tend to be people of sharp and quick perception; the kind you want around as much and as long as possible. Their departure evacuates the institution in considerable degree of priceless qualities -- sense of mission, dedication to task, willingness to work and to sacrifice.
The public schools can't hold such people? More shame for those schools. Once upon a time, the great majority of us attended them. In the 21st century, their widely advertised shortcomings and deficiencies are driving out, or keeping away altogether, people whose presence in the classroom every half-sensible educator should crave.
The ceremony at which I spoke featured two -- count 'em -- two young men, supported by scores of parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, fellow church members and well-wishers in general. A public high school principal might shrug at the loss of a mere two students from his rolls. Too bad. C'est la vie.
The two in question, nevertheless -- Eagles Scouts soon to take flight, accomplished debaters, tireless readers, international lawyers in the making -- are the sort who clearly adorn whatever company they keep. The public schools want more such, not fewer. Yet fewer and fewer they get, as more and more Americans express their distrust of the public schools' ability to impart an education such as was fairly common up to the '60s.
Click on the title to hear the rest...be prepared for kudos to home schoolers and, well, not kudos to government schooling!
---Katie
Home School, Sweet Home School
By William Murchison · Tuesday, May 18, 2010
As I addressed a home school graduation exercise the other day, I thought -- more than once -- ah, good old human nature at work once more.
It's what happens when institutions fail or give the distinct impression they're about to. Customers head for the exits: not all of them, maybe just a handful. Yet those who do flee, taking their hopes and their children with them, tend to be people of sharp and quick perception; the kind you want around as much and as long as possible. Their departure evacuates the institution in considerable degree of priceless qualities -- sense of mission, dedication to task, willingness to work and to sacrifice.
The public schools can't hold such people? More shame for those schools. Once upon a time, the great majority of us attended them. In the 21st century, their widely advertised shortcomings and deficiencies are driving out, or keeping away altogether, people whose presence in the classroom every half-sensible educator should crave.
The ceremony at which I spoke featured two -- count 'em -- two young men, supported by scores of parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, fellow church members and well-wishers in general. A public high school principal might shrug at the loss of a mere two students from his rolls. Too bad. C'est la vie.
The two in question, nevertheless -- Eagles Scouts soon to take flight, accomplished debaters, tireless readers, international lawyers in the making -- are the sort who clearly adorn whatever company they keep. The public schools want more such, not fewer. Yet fewer and fewer they get, as more and more Americans express their distrust of the public schools' ability to impart an education such as was fairly common up to the '60s.
Click on the title to hear the rest...be prepared for kudos to home schoolers and, well, not kudos to government schooling!
---Katie
Hipocrisy in the Liberal Establishment
The left wants us to believe that the Tea Party is made up of racist white men. Why else would their minions bet the snot out of this man?
(by Armstrong Williams)
The Tea Party movement has been front and center in the news lately. Stories abound of how they are pushing hard against establishment Democrats and Republicans alike. As the media would have you believe it, these tea party members are strong, both in will and physical stature, and virtually untouchable. But what is often not reported is the ridicule and constant assaulting these patriots receive, and how the Left’s media operation allows the perpetrators to get away with it.
One story is particularly alarming. Attending a tea party-led assembly in St. Louis last August, Mr. Kenneth Gladney was protesting a health care forum hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), handing out Don’t Tread on Me flags and voicing his opposition. Then out of the blue, Gladney was attacked and horrifically beaten by members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These thugs didn’t like what Gladney had to say nor why he was protesting a provision their Bosses deemed was worthy, so they hunted him down and taught him a lesson he won’t soon forget.
Was Gladney a white, redneck racist as some commentators such as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann have characterized all tea party members? Hardly. Gladney is African American. And the SEIU thugs reminded him of his color as they beat him to a pulp, using the N word repeatedly.
Click on the title to read the rest!
I'd like to point out that the author of this article is an African American as well.
---Katie
(by Armstrong Williams)
The Tea Party movement has been front and center in the news lately. Stories abound of how they are pushing hard against establishment Democrats and Republicans alike. As the media would have you believe it, these tea party members are strong, both in will and physical stature, and virtually untouchable. But what is often not reported is the ridicule and constant assaulting these patriots receive, and how the Left’s media operation allows the perpetrators to get away with it.
One story is particularly alarming. Attending a tea party-led assembly in St. Louis last August, Mr. Kenneth Gladney was protesting a health care forum hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), handing out Don’t Tread on Me flags and voicing his opposition. Then out of the blue, Gladney was attacked and horrifically beaten by members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). These thugs didn’t like what Gladney had to say nor why he was protesting a provision their Bosses deemed was worthy, so they hunted him down and taught him a lesson he won’t soon forget.
Was Gladney a white, redneck racist as some commentators such as MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann have characterized all tea party members? Hardly. Gladney is African American. And the SEIU thugs reminded him of his color as they beat him to a pulp, using the N word repeatedly.
Click on the title to read the rest!
I'd like to point out that the author of this article is an African American as well.
---Katie
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Women and Minorities: Just CORE's Consorts!
Dr. Jon Pahl is standing by his anti-CORE screed....apparently someone has pointed out to him that there are quite a few members of CORE who are not white, or male....no matter. They are just the white males' consorts!
The movement is led (largely) by white males (and their consorts) frightened of losing privilege,
Click on the title to check it out!
The title makes me giggle..."When a Theologian Enters the Fray!" Um, there have been theologians involved in this discussion for quite some time. I guess this one is more credible because he is willing to demonize his opponents....
---Katie
The movement is led (largely) by white males (and their consorts) frightened of losing privilege,
Click on the title to check it out!
The title makes me giggle..."When a Theologian Enters the Fray!" Um, there have been theologians involved in this discussion for quite some time. I guess this one is more credible because he is willing to demonize his opponents....
---Katie
Y'all Do Know You Won, Don't You?
I wasn't going to post this because, frankly, I have trouble getting through it without my eyes freezing crossed.....
Here is an excerpt, and you know you can click on the title for the entire article:
All in all, the core of Lutheran CORE is rotten. One can get more than a whiff of Docetism, Donatism, and Pelagianism — heresies all — in the doctrinal formulations of the various groups represented in the coalition. Lutheran CORE represents, in its demographic and historical contours, a largely white, heterosexual, male backlash against the supposedly evil changes in gender roles, sexual mores, and participatory democracy that marked the 1960s. At the same time, the leaders of the movement also ironically embrace many of the least savory aspects of the sixties rhetoric of adolescent resentment and entitlement. Most fundamentally, the leaders of Lutheran CORE have come to the brink of dividing the church in an attempt to hold onto (or to carve out) some power. (Jon Pahl, PhD)
Unfortunately this mean-spirited screed is making the rounds on the Lutheran blogs and message boards, so I thought I would at least call it to your attention. What I don't understand about Dr. Pahl's supposedly scholarly article is why he felt a need to write it and why the Journal of Lutheran Ethics thought that this article would contribute positively to the conversation. Y'all won, folks! You got what you wanted! There is no reason to keep discussing it, because, despite the wishes of some in the ELCA, the changes have little to no chance of being rolled back. The people who would push for that are leaving - the ELCA is yours to do with as you wish! Be as progressive as you want to be. There are not enough traditionalists left to stop you!
Yet, the FL/Bahamas synod council felt a need to bring a resolution to the floor of their recent assembly praising the Church Council of the ELCA for its work and encouraging it to "stay the course." And Dr. Pahl takes members and supporters of Lutheran CORE to task for not simply accepting the decision of a very politicized CWA in 2009. Is this rubbing salt in the wounds, or what? Many of us feel that we have lost our church - could we ask for a little compassion - a little patience? Many of the revisionists say they want the traditionalists to stay, but things like this convince me of the opposite. In fact, it makes me want to ask, are the traditionalists not getting out fast enough to suit you?
You won. You got the church you want. Now let people go do what they need to do.
Here is an excerpt, and you know you can click on the title for the entire article:
All in all, the core of Lutheran CORE is rotten. One can get more than a whiff of Docetism, Donatism, and Pelagianism — heresies all — in the doctrinal formulations of the various groups represented in the coalition. Lutheran CORE represents, in its demographic and historical contours, a largely white, heterosexual, male backlash against the supposedly evil changes in gender roles, sexual mores, and participatory democracy that marked the 1960s. At the same time, the leaders of the movement also ironically embrace many of the least savory aspects of the sixties rhetoric of adolescent resentment and entitlement. Most fundamentally, the leaders of Lutheran CORE have come to the brink of dividing the church in an attempt to hold onto (or to carve out) some power. (Jon Pahl, PhD)
Unfortunately this mean-spirited screed is making the rounds on the Lutheran blogs and message boards, so I thought I would at least call it to your attention. What I don't understand about Dr. Pahl's supposedly scholarly article is why he felt a need to write it and why the Journal of Lutheran Ethics thought that this article would contribute positively to the conversation. Y'all won, folks! You got what you wanted! There is no reason to keep discussing it, because, despite the wishes of some in the ELCA, the changes have little to no chance of being rolled back. The people who would push for that are leaving - the ELCA is yours to do with as you wish! Be as progressive as you want to be. There are not enough traditionalists left to stop you!
Yet, the FL/Bahamas synod council felt a need to bring a resolution to the floor of their recent assembly praising the Church Council of the ELCA for its work and encouraging it to "stay the course." And Dr. Pahl takes members and supporters of Lutheran CORE to task for not simply accepting the decision of a very politicized CWA in 2009. Is this rubbing salt in the wounds, or what? Many of us feel that we have lost our church - could we ask for a little compassion - a little patience? Many of the revisionists say they want the traditionalists to stay, but things like this convince me of the opposite. In fact, it makes me want to ask, are the traditionalists not getting out fast enough to suit you?
You won. You got the church you want. Now let people go do what they need to do.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Ummm.....
AFP photo by Paul J. Richards
I am not a fashion maven by any stretch of the imagination...but who is dressing our first lady? Not only does the dress look bad, it looks like it must really hurt there under her armpit!
And, really, can we stop comparing her to Jackie Kennedy? There is just no comparison!
----Katie
Are your convictions strong enough to give up cheap electricity, LA?
Text of letter from Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa after Los Angeles City Council approved boycott of Arizona because of its new immigration law:
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.”
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.”
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Friday, April 23, 2010
Home for Free!
This is going around the 'net...might be true, might not, but it's entertaining!
Free Home offer
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.
I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.
“Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country. Use reason,
Feel free to share.
----Katie
Free Home offer
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.
I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.
“Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country. Use reason,
Feel free to share.
----Katie
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Global Warming Snow Job
I really get frustrated with the people who keep saying things like, "Just because it is cold in some parts of the world doesn't mean we aren't experiencing global warming!" What makes me question the validity of the global warming hypothesis is how many untruths and ignored or manipulated data are involved. This editorial just points out a few of the problems.
Global Warming Snowjob
The Washington Times Editorial Staff
Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science.
The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts. Consider a few of the problems with the U.N. report that came to light over the past few weeks.
-----
Click on the title for the rest!
---Katie
Global Warming Snowjob
The Washington Times Editorial Staff
Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science.
The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts. Consider a few of the problems with the U.N. report that came to light over the past few weeks.
-----
Click on the title for the rest!
---Katie
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Why Big Families Are Easier
This article from the National Catholic Register got me to choke up a little. I miss my four kids chaos!
by Matthew Archbold Thursday, February 04, 2010
A woman said to me recently that my five children were very well behaved. It’s one of the best things I can hear so I thanked her. Then she asked me “how do you do it with so many?”
I told her that I don’t think I’d be a very good parent of one child or two. She didn’t believe my answer but honest to goodness, I sometimes think that having many children is easier than just one.
Why big families are easier:
Patience. I never have to teach patience. My children know that I can’t drop everything for them if I have a baby in my arms.
Work Ethic. My children have learned to work because there are always chores to do in a small house packed with little messy lunatics. And they all learn quickly that sometimes they have to clean up a mess even though they didn’t make it.
Humility. My children have learned it’s not always their turn. They’ve accepted they can’t always get their way because other people have to get their way sometimes. They’ve learned that some children are better at certain things than they are.
Click on the title for some laughs!
---Katie
by Matthew Archbold Thursday, February 04, 2010
A woman said to me recently that my five children were very well behaved. It’s one of the best things I can hear so I thanked her. Then she asked me “how do you do it with so many?”
I told her that I don’t think I’d be a very good parent of one child or two. She didn’t believe my answer but honest to goodness, I sometimes think that having many children is easier than just one.
Why big families are easier:
Patience. I never have to teach patience. My children know that I can’t drop everything for them if I have a baby in my arms.
Work Ethic. My children have learned to work because there are always chores to do in a small house packed with little messy lunatics. And they all learn quickly that sometimes they have to clean up a mess even though they didn’t make it.
Humility. My children have learned it’s not always their turn. They’ve accepted they can’t always get their way because other people have to get their way sometimes. They’ve learned that some children are better at certain things than they are.
Click on the title for some laughs!
---Katie
Monday, February 01, 2010
Organizing for America Internships
Hmmmm.....
In case you cannot read the image(it gets a little blurry when you zoom in):
-Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.
-OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground-working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.
-Winter 2010 internships (dates are flexible depending on your school's schedule)
-The internship requires a commitment of 12 hours per week.
-Credit must be approved by your school ahead of time.
---Katie
In case you cannot read the image(it gets a little blurry when you zoom in):
-Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change.
-OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground-working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond.
-Winter 2010 internships (dates are flexible depending on your school's schedule)
-The internship requires a commitment of 12 hours per week.
-Credit must be approved by your school ahead of time.
---Katie
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
I Wonder What the Obama Administration Plans to Leave to the Private Sector?
The government already runs most elementary and secondary education, they want to take over health care, now they want to shut out private lenders for student loans?
Barack Obama Prepares to Drive Up the Costs of Education
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, January 25th at 1:00PM EST
74 Comments
When Obama takes to the podium for the State of the Union, one of the things he is allegedly going to push is a wholesale federal take over of the student loan industry.
Already, his plans are causing a lot of students, particularly of private higher ed colleges and universities, problems with getting financing for education. Obama intends to shut out the usual third party lenders and put everything within the federal government — under a program that has been shown repeatedly to be highly inefficient and burdensome for academic institutions.
More troubling, by putting everything under the Department of Education, universities and colleges will be forced to adhere to federal rules, some of which conflict with the values of sectarian institutions that presently use the third party student loan system for their students.
-----
Click on the title to read the rest at Red State.
Does the government have to have its finger in everything? I mean, really, we have been involved with the loan program and it is a pain in the rear to begin with, but do we really need to give the government more and more control? Especially when the program they want to move everyone into has already proven to be highly inefficient? Is i just that the government wants more say in who does and does not get an education? What am I missing?
---Katie
Barack Obama Prepares to Drive Up the Costs of Education
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Monday, January 25th at 1:00PM EST
74 Comments
When Obama takes to the podium for the State of the Union, one of the things he is allegedly going to push is a wholesale federal take over of the student loan industry.
Already, his plans are causing a lot of students, particularly of private higher ed colleges and universities, problems with getting financing for education. Obama intends to shut out the usual third party lenders and put everything within the federal government — under a program that has been shown repeatedly to be highly inefficient and burdensome for academic institutions.
More troubling, by putting everything under the Department of Education, universities and colleges will be forced to adhere to federal rules, some of which conflict with the values of sectarian institutions that presently use the third party student loan system for their students.
-----
Click on the title to read the rest at Red State.
Does the government have to have its finger in everything? I mean, really, we have been involved with the loan program and it is a pain in the rear to begin with, but do we really need to give the government more and more control? Especially when the program they want to move everyone into has already proven to be highly inefficient? Is i just that the government wants more say in who does and does not get an education? What am I missing?
---Katie
Monday, January 25, 2010
What the Healthcare Debate is Really All About
Here is an excellent article from the Witherspoon Institute:
What the Health-Care Debate Is Really All About
by James C. Capretta
January 19, 2010
The choice the country faces in health-care reform is a stark one with profound ramifications: What process will best deliver affordable quality health-care to all Americans, a government-driven or market-driven one?
----
The whole article is well worth reading, but what is really significant is the discussion on how well the Medicare Prescription plan has worked as a market based rather than government run program. Click on the title!
---Katie
What the Health-Care Debate Is Really All About
by James C. Capretta
January 19, 2010
The choice the country faces in health-care reform is a stark one with profound ramifications: What process will best deliver affordable quality health-care to all Americans, a government-driven or market-driven one?
----
The whole article is well worth reading, but what is really significant is the discussion on how well the Medicare Prescription plan has worked as a market based rather than government run program. Click on the title!
---Katie
Washington Does Hear You!
I would never have thought a Republican could win in Massachusetts - I think the electorate realized for once that their votes do count!
Great Scott!
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some of the most melancholy letters and e-mails that are sent to me are from people who lament that there is nothing they can do about the bad policies that they see ruining this country. They don't have any media outlet for their opinions and the letters they send to their Congressmen are either ignored or are answered by form letters with weasel words. They feel powerless.
Sometimes I remind them that the whole political establishment — both Democrats and Republicans, as well as the mainstream media — were behind amnesty for illegal immigrants, until the public opinion polls showed that the voters were not buying it. If politicians can't do anything else right, they can count votes.
It was the same story with the government's health care takeover legislation. The Democrats have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress that they could literally lock the Republicans out of the room where they were deciding what to do, set arbitrary deadlines for votes, and cut off debate in the Senate. The mainstream media was on board with this bill too. To hear the talking heads on TV, you would think it was a done deal.
Click on the title to read the rest - Thomas Sowell is always thought provoking!
---Katie
Great Scott!
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some of the most melancholy letters and e-mails that are sent to me are from people who lament that there is nothing they can do about the bad policies that they see ruining this country. They don't have any media outlet for their opinions and the letters they send to their Congressmen are either ignored or are answered by form letters with weasel words. They feel powerless.
Sometimes I remind them that the whole political establishment — both Democrats and Republicans, as well as the mainstream media — were behind amnesty for illegal immigrants, until the public opinion polls showed that the voters were not buying it. If politicians can't do anything else right, they can count votes.
It was the same story with the government's health care takeover legislation. The Democrats have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress that they could literally lock the Republicans out of the room where they were deciding what to do, set arbitrary deadlines for votes, and cut off debate in the Senate. The mainstream media was on board with this bill too. To hear the talking heads on TV, you would think it was a done deal.
Click on the title to read the rest - Thomas Sowell is always thought provoking!
---Katie
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Mini Ice Age Starts Here
I think we had better start requiring MORE CO2 production!
By David Rose
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
Click on the title to read the article.
------------
If it is all the same to you, I could go for a little global warming after the week we have had!
Or at least let's not destroy the economies of the industrialized countries by trying to fix a problem that is not a problem!
----Katie
By David Rose
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
Click on the title to read the article.
------------
If it is all the same to you, I could go for a little global warming after the week we have had!
Or at least let's not destroy the economies of the industrialized countries by trying to fix a problem that is not a problem!
----Katie
Friday, January 08, 2010
Is the Healthcare Bill Unconstitutional?
Do you think it is constitutional for our government to require us to carry health insurance? Liberty Counsel says no:
Washington, DC – The current healthcare bills pending in the Senate and the House are unconstitutional, because Congress lacks the authority to mandate insurance coverage for individuals or private businesses. If a bill passes that mandates individual coverage or requires private employers to provide coverage, Liberty Counsel will file suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Liberty University, the largest and fastest-growing Christian university in the world, with over 50,000 students, will be one of the plaintiffs in such a suit. Other plaintiffs include individuals, private nonprofit and for-profit businesses and organizations, and religious institutions.
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: “Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. Congress clearly lacks the constitutional authority to force individuals to have, or private businesses to provide, health insurance. Congress’s attempt to force health insurance coverage on the nation is a stunning example of what Congress cannot do.”
The Taxing and Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause are the two primary provisions of the Constitution that enable Congress to act. The healthcare bills do not fall under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Moreover, unlike some other laws Congress passes which impose requirements on states that accept federal funds, the healthcare bills impose requirements on individuals and private employers who refuse to accept the government mandate.
In order to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the activity must affect interstate commerce. Individual decisions about health insurance do not, in most cases, affect interstate commerce. Yet, the proposed bills force coverage on individuals and private employers, no matter how far removed their activities are from interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has cut back on Congress’s authority to regulate private or local matters of concern.
“If Congress had the power to force each person to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be meaningless. No matter the desires of some elected officials, there are some things Congress cannot do. No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions. The threat to liberty posed by the healthcare bills goes beyond healthcare. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will vanish. The healthcare bills are patently unconstitutional.”
-----
Click on the title to visit Liberty Counsel.
---Katie
Washington, DC – The current healthcare bills pending in the Senate and the House are unconstitutional, because Congress lacks the authority to mandate insurance coverage for individuals or private businesses. If a bill passes that mandates individual coverage or requires private employers to provide coverage, Liberty Counsel will file suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Liberty University, the largest and fastest-growing Christian university in the world, with over 50,000 students, will be one of the plaintiffs in such a suit. Other plaintiffs include individuals, private nonprofit and for-profit businesses and organizations, and religious institutions.
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: “Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. Congress clearly lacks the constitutional authority to force individuals to have, or private businesses to provide, health insurance. Congress’s attempt to force health insurance coverage on the nation is a stunning example of what Congress cannot do.”
The Taxing and Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause are the two primary provisions of the Constitution that enable Congress to act. The healthcare bills do not fall under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Moreover, unlike some other laws Congress passes which impose requirements on states that accept federal funds, the healthcare bills impose requirements on individuals and private employers who refuse to accept the government mandate.
In order to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the activity must affect interstate commerce. Individual decisions about health insurance do not, in most cases, affect interstate commerce. Yet, the proposed bills force coverage on individuals and private employers, no matter how far removed their activities are from interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has cut back on Congress’s authority to regulate private or local matters of concern.
“If Congress had the power to force each person to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be meaningless. No matter the desires of some elected officials, there are some things Congress cannot do. No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions. The threat to liberty posed by the healthcare bills goes beyond healthcare. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will vanish. The healthcare bills are patently unconstitutional.”
-----
Click on the title to visit Liberty Counsel.
---Katie
Sunday, January 03, 2010
After the Collectivist Winter Will Come the Spring
We have to wait through a decade of winter before we see spring? Say it isn't so, Vin!
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: After the collectivist Winter will come the Spring
A great decade lies ahead. Unfortunately, it's not the next one
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
I wish I could offer some cheery prognostications for 2010.
I'd like to predict Barack Obama will awaken some morning soon, rub his eyes, and go, "Holy cow. Do you realize we're actually letting welfare recipients vote? Talk about a conflict of interest! If we don't want this republic to descend into a collectivist slave state we've got to immediately limit the franchise to only net tax payers. And the Seventeenth Amendment, which encourages senators to collect millions in 'campaign' bribes from corporations and labor unions from here to Hong Kong, has to be repealed, restoring the states' veto power over congressional mischief. Anybody can see that.
"Meantime, I can't believe the way this federal government has been sucking the lifeblood out of our most productive citizens, till the wealthiest are actually fleeing the country with their remaining assets, the way the entrepreneurial class fled Russia in 1918.
"And we've been wondering why there's no 'job creation'? We need to repeal the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the federal income tax immediately, replacing them with nothing. And let's close down the Fed and tell Congress to get back to doing their job and setting the value of the dollar as a fixed weight of gold or silver. If all that reduces the size of the federal government by half, heck, it's a start.
"Rahm, get me Ron Paul on the phone, let's see if he'll take over Treasury."
----------------
Yeah, right, Obama's going to do that!
Click on the title to read the whole article!
---Katie
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: After the collectivist Winter will come the Spring
A great decade lies ahead. Unfortunately, it's not the next one
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
I wish I could offer some cheery prognostications for 2010.
I'd like to predict Barack Obama will awaken some morning soon, rub his eyes, and go, "Holy cow. Do you realize we're actually letting welfare recipients vote? Talk about a conflict of interest! If we don't want this republic to descend into a collectivist slave state we've got to immediately limit the franchise to only net tax payers. And the Seventeenth Amendment, which encourages senators to collect millions in 'campaign' bribes from corporations and labor unions from here to Hong Kong, has to be repealed, restoring the states' veto power over congressional mischief. Anybody can see that.
"Meantime, I can't believe the way this federal government has been sucking the lifeblood out of our most productive citizens, till the wealthiest are actually fleeing the country with their remaining assets, the way the entrepreneurial class fled Russia in 1918.
"And we've been wondering why there's no 'job creation'? We need to repeal the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the federal income tax immediately, replacing them with nothing. And let's close down the Fed and tell Congress to get back to doing their job and setting the value of the dollar as a fixed weight of gold or silver. If all that reduces the size of the federal government by half, heck, it's a start.
"Rahm, get me Ron Paul on the phone, let's see if he'll take over Treasury."
----------------
Yeah, right, Obama's going to do that!
Click on the title to read the whole article!
---Katie
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Honduras Refuses to Be Bullied
I only wish we Americans were so willing to stand up for our Constitutional rights!
The Obamites Fold Their Tents and Slink Off: Facing a Stronger Foe.
January 2, 2010, 7:47 am
By Bruce Karlson
The “stronger foe” referenced above is Honduras. As is obvious, its strength is not in force of arms, population, or economic clout. The Hondurans and their recent president, Roberto Micheletti, had spine, commitment, and principle.
Obamites, and Democrats in general, are unfamiliar with these attributes and usually simply pay obeisance to or pay off dictators of all persuasions. It should be noted that said dictators need not have their fiefdoms off shore.
Andrew Stern of the SEIU, the current head of the misnamed National Education Association (education is far down the list of interests for this bunch), the Teamsters, UAW, etc. can depend on government largesse ad infinitum from Obamites. All they need do is pay up and vote as required.
In June of last year the Honduran military, after being ordered by the Supreme Court, forced then President Manuel Zelaya out of office. He immediately left the country with the approval (encouragement?) of the military. Prior to being deposed, Zelaya attempted to hold an illegal vote that could have changed the Constitution to allow him to become president for life. After all, his new buddy, Hugo Chavez had done it, why not he? Hugo aided Zelaya as he wanted another vote in his Latin cabal and desired an alternate route to run drugs.
This perfectly legal and necessary action (there is no Constitutional provision to remove a sitting president) caused huffing and puffing around the globe. The huffing was most pronounced in Turtle Bay as unctuous UN officials denounced it as a coup and demanded that Zelaya be retuned to office. Most reasonable persons thought this odd as the presidency instantly passed to Micheletti by constitutional mandate. After even the most inept coup, the military is ALWAYS in charge.
Click on the title to read the rest...
I wonder if Obama will try the same thing. President for life - yikes! I would rather we limit them all to one term.
---Katie
The Obamites Fold Their Tents and Slink Off: Facing a Stronger Foe.
January 2, 2010, 7:47 am
By Bruce Karlson
The “stronger foe” referenced above is Honduras. As is obvious, its strength is not in force of arms, population, or economic clout. The Hondurans and their recent president, Roberto Micheletti, had spine, commitment, and principle.
Obamites, and Democrats in general, are unfamiliar with these attributes and usually simply pay obeisance to or pay off dictators of all persuasions. It should be noted that said dictators need not have their fiefdoms off shore.
Andrew Stern of the SEIU, the current head of the misnamed National Education Association (education is far down the list of interests for this bunch), the Teamsters, UAW, etc. can depend on government largesse ad infinitum from Obamites. All they need do is pay up and vote as required.
In June of last year the Honduran military, after being ordered by the Supreme Court, forced then President Manuel Zelaya out of office. He immediately left the country with the approval (encouragement?) of the military. Prior to being deposed, Zelaya attempted to hold an illegal vote that could have changed the Constitution to allow him to become president for life. After all, his new buddy, Hugo Chavez had done it, why not he? Hugo aided Zelaya as he wanted another vote in his Latin cabal and desired an alternate route to run drugs.
This perfectly legal and necessary action (there is no Constitutional provision to remove a sitting president) caused huffing and puffing around the globe. The huffing was most pronounced in Turtle Bay as unctuous UN officials denounced it as a coup and demanded that Zelaya be retuned to office. Most reasonable persons thought this odd as the presidency instantly passed to Micheletti by constitutional mandate. After even the most inept coup, the military is ALWAYS in charge.
Click on the title to read the rest...
I wonder if Obama will try the same thing. President for life - yikes! I would rather we limit them all to one term.
---Katie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)